Dribble ...

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Then ended element is there to distinguish that the next act is a new dribble. The second dribble need never end for it to be a violation, it only needs to be started.

Then you are not following case citations. You are going only by, and quite strictly, the rule book.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You'd be wrong. I've called it and I'll call it again. If it leaves the hand looking like the million dribbles I've seen before it, it is a dribble. If it leaves the hand
looking like the million passes I've seen before it, it is a pass.

That's just it, these plays are not ones you have seen millions of times, which is why you would not call anything until it was touched again.

You have not seen players throw the ball off the backboard to themselves millions of times. You have not seen a shooter, about to be blocked, drop the ball, millions of times. We have been talking about extremely rare cases.

I can see it now, shooter in the air, about to be blocked, simply lets go of the ball, and TWEET, immediately, before the ball is even close to the floor, you call a violation. I'd love to hear that conversation with the coach as well as see the entire crowd's amazement as to what happened.

Or, player after dribbling to a stop 20 feet from the backboard, clearly throws the ball to himself off the backboard, and you blow your whistle on release, signaling a violation before the ball even hits the backboard. Would love to see that too. Yikes!

Yes, I do recall that thread as well. Boring.


Respectfully, all that knowledge and experience CR and you only go by one set of rules... your own. That is perfectly acceptable however, I will continue to follow the rule and case books, as well as the released interpretations/POEs/comments/etc. Again ,with respect, I simply cannot respond to you any longer.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bucky

Then you are not following case citations. You are going only by, and quite strictly, the rule book.



That's just it, these plays are not ones you have seen millions of times, which is why you would not call anything until it was touched again.

.

4.15.4 SITUATION A: As dribbler A1 attempts to change direction to avoid guard B1, he/she allows the ball to come to rest in one hand in bringing the ball from the right to the left side of the body. A1 pushes the ball to the floor in an attempt to continue the dribble. RULING: When A1 palmed/carried the ball the dribble ended and when he/she pushed the ball to the floor a violation occurred.



No mention of another touch needed in order to have a violation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

Then you are not following case citations. You are going only by, and quite strictly, the rule book.

Respectfully, all that knowledge and experience CR and you only go by one set of rules... your own. That is perfectly acceptable however, I will continue to follow the rule and case books, as well as the released interpretations/POEs/comments/etc. Again ,with respect, I simply cannot respond to you any longer.

You might want to rethink that....

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.15.4 SITUATION A: As dribbler A1 attempts to change direction to avoid guard B1, he/she allows the ball to come to rest in one hand in bringing the ball from the right to the left side of the body. A1 pushes the ball to the floor in an attempt to continue the dribble. RULING: When A1 palmed/carried the ball the dribble ended and when he/she pushed the ball to the floor a violation occurred.



No mention of another touch needed in order to have a violation.

There you go. The new dribble and violation occurred when the ball was pushed to the floor.

You may not like it and may not want to admit it but it really is NFHS the rule (not my rule)....and supported by the case play JAR cited above.


The thing you're missing about the case plays you're looking at is they're not defining what is a violation. They're giving play examples, which may include more activity than is relevant, and giving a ruling. That doesn't mean all of the activity listed has to occur to be a violation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is it 4.15.1 SITUATION C, or is there an additional casebook play? Another casebook play would be swell, said the Beaver to Wally.

Yes, this one.

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.15.4 SITUATION A: As dribbler A1 attempts to change direction to avoid guard B1, he/she allows the ball to come to rest in one hand in bringing the ball from the right to the left side of the body. A1 pushes the ball to the floor in an attempt to continue the dribble. RULING: When A1 palmed/carried the ball the dribble ended and when he/she pushed the ball to the floor a violation occurred.


No mention of another touch needed in order to have a violation.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4.44.3 SITUATION D: A1 throws the ball over the head of B1 and then takes several steps before catching it. RULING: ...a traveling violation in ... since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is illegal. (9-4)

Wait? I thought that you could only travel (one rare exception and this is not it) when holding the ball? And there's that pesky ball touching the floor play that keeps rearing its ugly head.

I already mentioned in this thread that the NFHS altered the ruling on this play from illegal dribble to traveling about 10 years ago. It should not have done that because now the violation in the ruling no longer meets the actual rules, but Mary Struckhoff never cared about the actual rules!

Save

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yes, this one.

4.15.1 SITUATION C is an excellent citation stating that the start of a dribble is the same as a dribble.

4.15.1 SITUATION C: A1 attempts a pass to A2 during pressing action in A’s backcourt. The ball hits B’s backboard and deflects directly back to A1 who catches the ball and starts a dribble. RULING: The pass against B’s backboard was the start of a dribble which ended when A1 caught the ball. It is a violation for a second dribble. (4-4-5; 9-5)

It literally contains the words, "starts a dribble, not "dribble", but "starts a dribble", nothing more, no ball hitting the floor, no additional touch, etc.

The rule itself is poorly worded. The casebook play is as clear as a bell.

However, practically speaking, in a real game, I would have a patient whistle to be sure that this doesn't subsequently turn into a bounce pass to a teammate, or a steal by the opponents.

4.15.4 SITUATION A is a pretty good citation stating that the start of a dribble is the same as a dribble.

4.15.4 SITUATION A: As dribbler A1 attempts to change direction to avoid guard B1, he/she allows the ball to come to rest in one hand in bringing the ball from the right to the left side of the body. A1 pushes the ball to the floor in an attempt to continue the dribble. RULING: When A1 palmed/carried the ball the dribble ended and when he/she pushed the ball to the floor a violation occurred.

It states, "attempt to continue the dribble", not "continues the dribble". I not a big fan of "pushed the ball to the floor" at the end of the casebook play, some may quibble about whether, or not, pushing the ball to the floor really means that the ball actually hits the floor.

Theoretically speaking, on a written test, the start of a dribble is the same as a dribble.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it, at least until somebody changes my mind, which may be in a few minutes the way that this thread is going.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4.44.3 SITUATION D: A1 throws the ball over the head of B1 and then takes several steps before catching it. RULING: ...a traveling violation in ... since the ball did not touch the floor, the tossing and subsequent catch is illegal. (9-4)

Wait? I thought that you could only travel (one rare exception and this is not it) when holding the ball?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I already mentioned in this thread that the NFHS altered the ruling on this play from illegal dribble to traveling about 10 years ago. It should not have done that because now the violation in the ruling no longer meets the actual rules.

So I was right, it's not a travel. right?

Stupid caseplay. Stupid NFHS.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by just another ref

4.15.4 SITUATION A: As dribbler A1 attempts to change direction to avoid guard B1, he/she allows the ball to come to rest in one hand in bringing the ball from the right to the left side of the body. A1 pushes the ball to the floor in an attempt to continue the dribble. RULING: When A1 palmed/carried the ball the dribble ended and when he/she pushed the ball to the floor a violation occurred.



No mention of another touch needed in order to have a violation.

A moot point as other cases, such as 4.15.4 Sit C, specifically mention another touch for the violation to occur.

It also does not mention that it would be an illegal dribble violation. In fact, it uses the words palmed/carried and that is exactly what CR/you/me and every other ref in the world would call on this play. We would blow our whistle and use the palming mechanic. No one would use the illegal dribble mechanic.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bucky

It also does not mention that it would be an illegal dribble violation. In fact, it uses the words palmed/carried and that is exactly what CR/you/me and every other ref in the world would call on this play. We would blow our whistle and use the palming mechanic. No one would use the illegal dribble mechanic.

The violation is the same. The palming mechanic is simply a communication to help describe the play. It was actually removed from the books years ago and then put back again.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

... palmed/carried the ball the dribble ended ...

Originally Posted by bucky

... it uses the words palmed/carried and that is exactly what ... every other ref in the world would call on this play. We would blow our whistle and use the palming mechanic. No one would use the illegal dribble mechanic.

Originally Posted by just another ref

The violation is the same. The palming mechanic is simply a communication to help describe the play.

Palming (carrying) is not an actual violation, it is just a signal. Sometimes the actual violation is a travel. Sometimes the actual violation is an illegal dribble.

Here's the only mention of palming (carrying) in the rulebook, it's the only mention anywhere in the rule (not casebook) language.

4-15-4-B: The dribble ends when: The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or both hands.

Palming (carrying) is not found anywhere in Rule 9 Violations. It's not a actual violation, it's just a signal.

Palming, or carrying, is when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand, and the player either travels with the ball, or dribbles an illegal second (double) time.



While almost all officials use the palming (carrying) signal for such a play, it wouldn't be incorrect for an official to use the travel signal for a situation where the violation was an actual travel, or for an official to use the illegal dribble signal for an actual illegal dribble. I've observed many officials use these options. It would be incorrect for an official to use the travel signal for such a play that was actually an illegal dribble, or for an official to use an illegal dribble signal for a play that was actually a travel.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The palming mechanic is simply a communication to help describe the play. It was actually removed from the books years ago and then put back again.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They only added the carry signal for clarity in communication. It wasn't a rule change.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

4-15-4-B: The dribble ends when: The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or both hands.

Palming, or carrying, is when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand, and the player either travels with the ball, or dribbles an illegal second (double) time.

I just realized that my statement, "Palming, or carrying, is when the ball comes to rest in the player's hand, and the player either travels with the ball, or dribbles an illegal second (double) time", is incorrect.

By rule language, palming can be a legal method of legally ending a dribble, i.e., no violation.

My statement accurately reflects the use of the signal, palming leading to an illegal (double) dribble, or a travel.

Palming may be the oddest signal on the NFHS signal chart.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

... palming ... actually removed from the books years ago and then put back again.

Got any additional historical information? Timeline? Why removed (probably because it's not an actual violation)? Why, once removed, put back (officials revolt)?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Got any additional historical information? Timeline? Why removed (probably because it's not an actual violation)? Why, once removed, put back (officials revolt)?

Yes, it is strange that palming is in the Violations section of the rule book but not in any written area. Contrastingly, some violations (ball through net from below) are in the written area but not in the Violations section.

Now that is plot thickening.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bucky

A moot point as other cases, such as 4.15.4 Sit C, specifically mention another touch for the violation to occur.

It also does not mention that it would be an illegal dribble violation. In fact, it uses the words palmed/carried and that is exactly what CR/you/me and every other ref in the world would call on this play. We would blow our whistle and use the palming mechanic. No one would use the illegal dribble mechanic.

No, the other cases mention that another touch happens and a violation has occurred but they do not say that the violation can't occur without it.

A carry/palm IS either an illegal dribble or a travel depending on the specifics. For long time, the call was just that. They only added the carry signal for clarity in communication. It wasn't a rule change.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No, the other cases mention that another touch happens and a violation has occurred but they do not say that the violation can't occur without it.

Can't believe I am doing this...sigh. You are incorrect. The word "provided" in the case I cited indicates that the violation can't occur without the second touch.

Even 4.15.4 Sit D indicates the second touch is required with the words "..because the ball was touched twice..."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

4.15.4 Sit D indicates the second touch is required with the words "..because the ball was touched twice..."

4.15.4 SITUATION D: While dribbling: (a) A1 bats the ball over the head of an
opponent, runs around the opponent, bats the ball to the floor and continues to
dribble; RULING: Violation in (a), because the ball was touched twice by A1’s
hand(s) during a dribble, before it touched the floor.

The plot thickens.